RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-03336
                             INDEX CODE:  111.02

                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period    5  December
1995 through 4 December 1996 be upgraded from a “4” to  an  overall  “5”  in
Section IV, Promotion Recommendation.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She believes that she received an overall “4” on her EPR,  dated  through  4
December 1996  because  of  her  supervisor’s  vindictiveness  and  not  her
performance  throughout  the  reporting  period.   During  the   period   in
question, her supervisor counseled her on her  performance,  but  would  not
complete an AF  Form  931  (Performance  Feedback  Worksheet).   During  the
counseling sessions, the supervisor said, “everything  was  great.”   During
October of that year,  the  supervisor  started  ordering  AF  personnel  to
Ergometry Test every sixty days and to run three  miles  every  month.   She
advised him that those orders really were not legal, he answered “I  can  do
it because I am the boss.”  She went  through  her  chain  of  command  that
ended at the 694th Intelligence Group, they advised the supervisor that  his
orders were  not  legal.   Soon  after  that  happened,  their  relationship
changed drastically.

She also states that the  EPR  should  have  closed  out  the  beginning  of
December 1996, it was not closed out until April 1997.  She states that  she
did not realize what the rating was  going  to  be  on  her  EPR  until  she
accidentally saw the EPR on the Senior Rater’s desk.  She sent a  memorandum
to 694th IG Inspector General and was told that  if  she  wanted  to  change
anything she would have to go through the Board of Corrections.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement  from  the  indorser
who indicates that due to organizational changes  applicant  was  physically
separated from her military unit and  she  was  placed  in  a  very  awkward
position of fulfilling what normally would be a DOD civilian secretarial  or
clerical position.  There were circumstances over which  the  applicant  had
no control and she was placed in a position for which she was  not  trained.
At  the  same  time,  however,  applicant   still   had   to   fulfill   her
responsibilities in support of the military members.  The applicant  did  an
outstanding job supporting his office on  a  daily  basis  and  she  quickly
acquired skills and learned new procedures to  support  a  senior  civilian.
Learning all of the new procedures is a daunting task and  special  training
courses are conducted to introduce them to this environment.  Applicant  did
not have the benefit of this training yet found the means to support him  in
every way necessary.  The purpose of this letter is to advise the  Board  of
extenuating circumstances regarding applicant’s performance  rating.   As  a
joint team their military  members  are  comprised  of  personnel  from  all
branches of the military service.  Traditionally the Chief of  that  section
has been a Army lieutenant colonel and it became very apparent to  him  that
service “cultural” differences  played  heavily  in  ratings  of  the  NCO’S
assigned to their  organization.   As  head  of  the  office,  he  routinely
deferred  military  matters  to  the  senior  military   person   of   their
organization.  Clearly, in the case of the applicant,  he  could  have,  and
perhaps should have, been more actively involved in the  assessment  process
for final review.  He regrets that he was not.  In  closing,  he  would  ask
that the Board take into consideration the most awkward  position  in  which
the applicant was placed, the outstanding support she provided to  him,  and
the rating by a non-USAF supervisor.  He is convinced that if the  applicant
had been in an Air Force unit, supervised by Air Force personnel, her  final
review would certainly have been at the “5”  level.   Applicant  became  the
victim of circumstances, none of which was her choice or over which she  had
any control.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was promoted to the  grade  of  technical  sergeant  on          1
October 1989.

The applicant retired on 1 May 1998, in  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant
based on High Year Tenure (HYT) - 20 years active service.

EPR profile since 1991 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

        4 Dec 91       5
        4 Dec 92       5
        4 Dec 93       5
        4 Dec 94       5
        4 Dec 95       5
       *4 Dec 96       4

*  Contested report.

On  1  June  1998,  the  applicant  submitted  an   application   requesting
retroactive promotion, back pay and allowances, and date of rank,  based  on
the conviction of Technical Sergeant W--- W---.  She also requested that  if
the aforementioned is  approved,  she  be  granted  a  time-in-grade  waiver
enabling her to stay in retired status.  On 2 October 1998, she submitted  a
letter stating that she needed more time beyond 22 October 1998 to  respond;
and therefore stated that she wished to  withdraw  her  application  without
prejudice  and  resubmit  at  a  later  date.   On  14  October  1998,   her
application was withdrawn.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this  application  and
states that the applicant has failed to provide any information  or  support
from the rater of the contested  report.   In  reference  to  the  applicant
contending she did not receive formal written feedback during the  reporting
period but was told by her rater she was doing a great job, they  point  out
that it is the applicant’s responsibility  to  be  aware  of  when  feedback
sessions are due and request a feedback session if  needed.   If  her  rater
failed to conduct a formal feedback, it was her  responsibility  to  contact
the rater’s rater.  While current  Air  Force  policy  requires  performance
feedback for personnel, a direct correlation  between  information  provided
during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does  not
necessarily exist.  There may be occasions when feedback  was  not  provided
during a reporting period.  Lack of counseling or feedback,  by  itself,  is
not  sufficient  to  challenge  the  accuracy  or  justness  of  a   report.
Evaluators must confirm they did not provide  counseling  or  feedback,  and
that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation.

They further state that for the applicant to relate the ratings on  the  EPR
to the comments she received from her rater during her performance  feedback
session  is  an  inappropriate  comparison  and  is  inconsistent  with  the
Enlisted Evaluation System (EES).

In reference to the  applicant  believing  her  rater  may  have  retaliated
against her for using her chain of command  to  resolve  the  issue  of  Air
Force personnel ergometry testing every sixty days and running  three  miles
each month, she included a copy of the memorandum she submitted to  the  IG,
dated 31 March 1997, however, she did not include a copy of their  findings.
 They ask, did they prove retaliation was a factor in her  receiving  a  “4”
on the contested EPR?

The applicant filed an appeal to the  AFBCMR  (application  dated    1  June
1998) requesting supplemental promotion consideration for  the  97E7  cycle.
Evidently, a select in her career field was removed from the promotion  list
because he cheated on his promotion fitness examination.  Since she was  the
number one  nonselect,  she  believed  she  should  move  up  and  gain  the
promotion.  However, AFPC/DPPPWB discovered one  of  her  evaluation  report
scores had been input into the computer system as a “5”  instead  of  a  “4”
making her the number “95” nonselect instead of number  “1.”   They  pointed
out that when the selects were made on 15 May 1997, the person who  cheated,
was a valid select, and even if she had been  selected  during  the  initial
selection process on 15 May 1997, she  would  have  been  removed  from  the
promotion list during the data  verification  process  because  her  correct
total score was below  the  cutoff  score  required  for  selection  in  her
promotion Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).

They state that the applicant  has  not  proven  the  EPR  was  rendered  in
retaliation against her, or that it was not an accurate  reflection  of  her
performance during the reporting period in  question.   They  further  state
that it is not uncommon for a rater or indorser to soften their opinions  in
retrospect as time passes.  They understand the applicant’s desire  to  have
the EPR upgraded because of the  potential  promotion  advantage.   However,
the fact remains at the time the applicant  was  considered  for  promotion,
because of the “4” she received on the contested EPR, her  score  was  below
the cutoff.  Therefore, based  on  the  evidence  provided,  they  recommend
denial of applicant's request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  also  reviewed   this
application and states that the first promotion cycle the contested EPR  was
considered in the promotion  process  was  cycle  97E7  to  master  sergeant
(promotion effective August 1997 - July 1998).  If the EPR is upgraded to  a
“5” as the applicant requests, her total score would  increase  from  330.25
to 337.00 and she would again become  the  number  one  nonselectee  in  her
AFSC, 3A0X1.

Based on substantiated facts it has been confirmed one  of  the  individuals
who was selected for promotion to master sergeant in  the  applicant’s  AFSC
cheated on the Promotion Fitness Examination (PFE).  This individual  had  a
historical PFE average of 55.74 but had  a  score  of  89.13  for  the  97E7
cycle, the cycle in question.  Had this unfortunate incident  not  occurred,
the applicant (assuming the contested EPR was an overall “5”) may have  been
selected instead.

They state  that  adjustments  may  be  made  after  the  fact  when  it  is
determined that an individual who was selected was ineligible for  promotion
consideration at the time.  They note this normally  occurs  when  personnel
actions that render someone ineligible, do not have time to process  to  the
promotion file by the time selections are made.  Under these  circumstances,
adjustments  may  be  made  to  promote  the  number  one   nonselect   when
appropriate.  However, there are no provisions,  based  on  current  policy,
for the applicant to be promoted administratively.   Although  it  has  been
confirmed the other individual cheated on the PFE, and  probably  would  not
have been selected at the time promotion selections  were  made  on  15  May
1997, he was a valid selectee.  They state, consequently,  they  are  unable
to take the promotion he received and award it to  the  applicant.   If  the
applicant had been selected during  this  cycle,  she  would  have  received
Promotion Sequence Number (PSN) 215.9 which would have  been  effective  and
with date  of  rank  of  1  August  1997.   They  verified  the  applicant’s
promotion data against the source documents in  her  Unit  Personnel  Record
Group (UPRG) as being accurate.  They defer to  the  recommendation  of  the
Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) for Active Duty  Service  Commitments
(ADSC)  regarding  the  two  year  ADSC  required  of  promotion  to  master
sergeant.  If the applicant had assumed the grade of master  sergeant  on  1
August 1997 she would have been required to remain on active  duty  until  1
August 1999 unless the  ADSC  had  been  waived.   They  state,  individuals
promoted to the grade of master sergeant have a High Year  Tenure  (HYT)  of
24 years.  Therefore,  they  defer  to  the  recommendation  of  AFPC/DPPPAB
regarding upgrade of the contested EPR to an overall “5.”  They  also  defer
to the decision of the Board but would not object to the  promotion  of  the
applicant should the EPR be upgraded.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states  that  she  has  not
seen or spoken to her rater in over a year, he retired in 1998, and even  if
she could locate him, she doubts whether he would even consider  taking  any
time to do anything that she requested of him.  She submitted a copy of  her
EPR that closed out 4  December  1995,  the  previous  EPR  to  the  one  in
question; the rater was then the  indorser,  and  gave  her  a  “5”  rating.
Also, his  demeanor  towards  her  changed  drastically,  from  relaxed  but
professional to very short and curt, after being  told  that  he  could  not
order Air Force personnel to do certain things.

She indicates the indorser never  interfered  with  any  military  personnel
decisions that the rater made.  In fact, when  she  spoke  to  the  indorser
about the rating, he reiterated his non-interference policy.  While  wishing
he could help, he held firm to his policy.

She did request the feedback sessions when  she  requested  that  the  rater
complete an AF Form 931,  Performance  Feedback  Worksheet,  and  the  rater
indicated that he saw no need to prepare one.  She states that she was at  a
definite disadvantage, if she had an AF Form 931 to even gauge how  she  was
doing, she could have spoken to him about how her work was lacking.

She also states that in her package to the board, she  was  informed  by  Lt
Col R---, there was nothing that he could do about  her  EPR  and  that  she
would have to go through the Board of Corrections to have it  changed.   She
also states the reason she has no Report of Investigation (ROI) is  that  Lt
Col R--- did not go any further than tell her  that  there  was  nothing  he
could do for her.

Applicant's complete response, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing laws  or
regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the  evidence  of
record and the circumstances surrounding the contested EPR, we believe  that
sufficient doubt exists as to the accuracy of the report.  In this  respect,
we note the statement from the indorser indicated  that  the  applicant  was
placed in a position for which she was not  trained;  that  applicant  found
the means  to  support  him  in  every  way  necessary  without  benefit  of
training; that it became  very  apparent  to  him  that  service  “cultural”
differences played heavily in ratings of the NCO’s; and, that  in  the  case
of the applicant he could have, and perhaps should have, been more  actively
involved in the assessment process for her final review.   In  view  of  the
indorser’s statement and in recognition  of  applicant’s  prior  outstanding
performance, we believe that the contested  report  should  be  upgraded  to
reflect a “5” rating in Section IV, Promotion  Recommendation,  rendered  by
the rater and indorser.

4.  Although the applicant has not  requested  promotion  to  the  grade  of
master sergeant in this appeal, we do note that  she  submitted  an  earlier
application requesting promotion to that grade.  Her request  was  based  on
the fact that one of the individuals  who  was  selected  for  promotion  to
master sergeant in the applicant’s AFSC for the 97E7 cycle  cheated  on  the
Promotion Fitness Examination (PFE).   Had  this  unfortunate  incident  not
occurred and the contested report reflected a “5” rating, the applicant  may
have been selected instead.  The Chief  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  Enlisted
Promotion Branch, in his advisory, states that if  the  Board  upgrades  the
contested report, they would not object to the promotion of  the  applicant.
If approved, applicant would be promoted effective 1 August 1997  and  would
incurred a two-year active duty service commitment (ADSC).  In  her  earlier
appeal, applicant also requested a waiver of this  ADSC.   In  view  of  the
fact that one of the individuals selected  for  promotion  during  the  97E7
cycle cheated on the PFC and since  the  applicant,  with  a  corrected  EPR
closing 4 December 1996, would have been  the  number  one  nonselectee,  it
appears that the applicant would have been promoted to the grade  of  master
sergeant during  the  97E7  cycle.   In  view  of  the  above  findings,  we
recommend that the applicant be promoted to the  grade  of  master  sergeant
effective and with date of rank on 1 August 1997 and that the two-year  ADSC
incurred with her promotion be waived.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

      a.    The Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered  for  the
period 5 December 1995 through 4 December 1996, was  amended  to  reflect  a
“5” rating in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, by  the  rater  and  the
indorser.

      b.    She was promoted to the grade of master sergeant  effective  and
with a date of rank of 1 August 1997.

      c.    On 1 August 1997, she requested a waiver of the two-year  active
duty service commitment incurred as a result of her promotion to  the  grade
of master sergeant and her request was approved by competent authority.

      d.    On 1 May 1998, she was retired for  length  of  service  in  the
grade of master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 20 April 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
                 Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
                 Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member
                 Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Nov 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 5 Jan 99.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 15 Dec 98.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Jan 99.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 27 Jan 99, w/atch.




                             MARTHA MAUST
                             Panel Chair